I know you've got the legal position nailed

I know you’ve got the legal position nailed. I see that in the statements of case and the position statement

And I promise all of that will weigh into how the day proceeds. We’ll look in detail at your risk profiling and your assessment of weaknesses in their case and procedural points you’re going to take if we don’t reach a settlement

But effective solutions often require us to deliberately step away from the pure legal position

Because a dispute between two people or organisations is always about more than the lawyers' positions

Litigating for 20 years has taught me that a messy human dispute can’t be simply constrained by legal principles written by a lawyer as agent to craft in letters. Principles which, no matter how convincing they are presented in perfect prose on expensive papers, never hit home with the opposing lawyers, who just do the same back

That traditional approach will detract from getting both sides to the place they need to get to, and send them locked in to battle at trial, leaving leaving a legal issue resolved, but not necessarily underlying tensions

An analysis of past facts reviewed under the scope of the law traps people in the past, always revisiting what happened and reinforcing the rights and wrongs of it

It converts the whole conflict into money. But often, the money isn't the real issue

So, along with your views on the legal merits, I want to hear your client’s truth. I want to hear what got them here, and what they really want, without having it dressed up in language about quantum meruit and reliance on detriment

Show me the real mess and let me get my hands dirty. Things may come out which you, as the lawyer with an understandable focus on legal outcomes, didn’t even realise were important or even existed

I want your client to speak openly about how angry this makes them and why. The things you've rightly told them not to dare say in witness evidence, they can and should say them to me

When I know their unadulterated truth, then we can uncover the real issues and work to fix them



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Setting a higher bar

Image
I reject the idea that a good mediation means no one leaves happy That notion sets the bar too low, aiming only for an outcome the parties can live with We should be aiming higher My goal isn't an equilibrium of dissatisfaction. It's to move beyond mere compromise and achieve consensus, where parties gain value instead of just conceding positions This isn't horse-trading or splitting the difference. It's about collaboratively increasing the size of the pie through creative, commercial solutions, managing the parties’ self-determination to construct a solution I want to stop costs from haemorrhaging, save clients from massive headaches, and to help construct a solution that leaves both sides feeling heard and satisfied Is that always possible? Of course not. But let's not start the day with the pessimistic view that a shrug is a success. My standard for a settlement is nothing less than a genuine win; if we don’t aim for that, then the high point of your day will be...
Read more

Flexibility

The most successful mediations are the most flexible ones Litigation is based on deadlines and structure, but discussions towards settlement need to be able to breathe After 20 years navigating litigation, I know rigid procedures rarely work for settling complex cases. I approach every mediation as a custom, bespoke human engagement based on the individuals involved, not a template I don't impose rules or police your preparation. My process is designed to be radically agile and fluid I offer complete flexibility on documents, focusing on the core issues you want to illustrate to me, rather than rigid deadlines I conduct pre-mediation calls to proactively identify potential deadlocks, subtle power dynamics, and strong emotions. This preparation is key to building a constructive day and letting me tailor preparation Send me a formal position statement or don’t - it’s up to you All of this means I can pick up a case at shorter notice than many others - I don’t need a formal lead-in ti...
Read more

Impartial

  I don’t like the word 'impartial.' It feels wrong to me Impartial is a judge who doesn’t care about the outcome and listens to legal points with no involvement in the humanity of the case, only coldly applying rules to facts • Impartial is an Ombudsman, a football ref, an umpire at Wimbledon • Impartial is someone with no skin in the game • Impartial *might be* the BBC (depending on who you ask) • Impartial is a non-participating character, reporting and analysing strictly to reach a result I don’t want to do that. Impartiality is cold, and it imposes a distance between mediator and client I can’t do my best work at helping create a solution for you without a full understanding of your viewpoint; without walking a mile in your shoes When you’re trusting me to know everything about your case, the least you can expect is that I support your case’s strengths, and work to get the best result for you and your client, in the space and time available I want to support you on the...
Read more